1. ROBERT LAHEY American Evaluation Association Conference Anaheim November 4, 2011 RElahey@rogers.com 1

2.  The evolution of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in Canada  Key features of the Canadian M&E Model  Some ‘lessons learned’ from 40 years RElahey@rogers.com2

3.  EVALUATION  PERFORMANCE MONITORING  OVERSIGHT  CREDENTIALING RElahey@rogers.com3

4. 4

5.  Our history of Evaluation in Canada begins in 1969 – a centralized unit in government  1977 – Delivery model for Evaluation in government changed RElahey@rogers.com5

6. 1. An Emphasis on BOTH Monitoring (the ‘M’) and Evaluation (the ‘E’) RElahey@rogers.com6

7. 7 AN EMPHASIS ON BOTH MONITORING & EVALUATION

8. 2. Internal Evaluation units in most federal government departments, with central leadership RElahey@rogers.com8

9. 9

10. 3. A well-defined foundation setting the rules and expectations for Evaluation – policy, standards, guidelines RElahey@rogers.com10

11. 4. Checks and Balances to support the ‘independence/neutrality’ of the internal Evaluation Units RElahey@rogers.com11

12. 5. Oversight mechanisms to reinforce credibility and provide quality control RElahey@rogers.com12

13. PARLIAMET RElahey@rogers.com13

14. PARLIAMET RElahey@rogers.com14 OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS

15. RElahey@rogers.com15 AUDITOR GENERAL RELEASES ‘OVERSIGHT’ REPORT

16. 6. Flexibility and a willingness to learn and adjust RElahey@rogers.com16

17. RElahey@rogers.com17 NEW EVALUATION POLICIES INTRODUCED

18. 7. ‘Transparency’ as an underlying value in the system RElahey@rogers.com18

19. 8. An ongoing commitment to capacity building RElahey@rogers.com19

20. RElahey@rogers.com20 PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS INTRODUCED

21. 515 No. of full-time Evaluators 38 No. of large federal departments & agencies 11.9 Median no. of Evaluators in a large department 93 % of evaluations that involved consultants

22. $77.6 M Amount spent on Evaluation government-wide 0.10 As a % of direct program spending $2.1 M Average amount spent by large departments 189 No. of evaluations produced by large departments

23. RElahey@rogers.com23

24. Building & using M&E capacity requires:  technical factors  cultural factors  sustained commitment RElahey@rogers.com24

25. ‘ Political will’ to allow & support :  Transparency  Public Disclosure  Objectivity/neutrality in measuring & reporting RElahey@rogers.com25

26. Defining ‘results’ and performance indicators on the basis of:  Logic models (results chains), and  Corporate performance frameworks RElahey@rogers.com26

27. A supply of good evaluations is not enough  There needs to be a realistic demand  Many potential uses & users  Built-in ‘incentives’ encourage users  Training & orientation for users RElahey@rogers.com27

28.  What competencies would they possess?  How best to ‘grow’ evaluators? RElahey@rogers.com28

29. RElahey@rogers.com29

30.  Wedded Bliss  A dysfunctional relationship  Occasional Lovers  Just Friends  None of the above

32.  Lahey, R., The Canadian M&E System: Lessons from 30 Years of Development, Evaluation Capacity Development Working Paper Series, No. 23, World Bank: November 2010  Contact Coordinates: * Robert Lahey * Ottawa, Canada * RELahey@rogers.comRELahey@rogers.com RElahey@rogers.com32